We performed a comparison between OpenText Silk Test and Selenium HQ based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Tricentis, OpenText, Perforce and others in Functional Testing Tools."The statistics that are available are very good."
"The major thing it has helped with is to reduce the workload on testing activities."
"The ability to develop scripts in Visual Studio, Visual Studio integration, is the most valuable feature."
"The feature I like most is the ease of reporting."
"Scripting is the most valuable. We are able to record and then go in and modify the script that it creates. It has a lot of generative scripts."
"The scalability of the solution is quite good. You can easily expand the product if you need to."
"A good automation tool that supports SAP functional testing."
"We can run multiple projects at the same time and we can design both types of framework, including data-driven or hybrid. We have got a lot of flexibility here."
"My customer previously validated every file and it would take almost 15-20 minutes for a document. They used to randomly select and test only 100 out of the thousands, maybe 85,000, files, to pick up sampling. Each file would take around 20 to 25 minutes, so we were not able to do it manually, but with the help of Selenium, we were able to test all the files in two days. It saves a lot of time."
"The solution is free to use."
"Our platform runs into several thousand screens and a few thousand test cases, something which would typically take months to test manually. As of today, the entire process takes a little over two days to run."
"Has a good Workday application that enables us to handle some of the custom controls."
"It supports multiple processes, which is great."
"The most valuable aspect of Selenium is that it gives you the flexibility to customize or write your own code, your own features, etc. It's not restricted by licensing."
"Due to its popularity, you can find pretty much any answer in open discussions from the community."
"Could be more user-friendly on the installation and configuration side."
"They should extend some of the functions that are a bit clunky and improve the integration."
"We moved to Ranorex because the solution did not easily scale, and we could not find good and short term third-party help. We needed to have a bigger pool of third-party contractors that we could draw on for specific implementations. Silk didn't have that, and we found what we needed for Ranorex here in the Houston area. It would be good if there is more community support. I don't know if Silk runs a user conference once a year and how they set up partners. We need to be able to talk to somebody more than just on the phone. It really comes right down to that. The generated automated script was highly dependent upon screen position and other keys that were not as robust as we wanted. We found the automated script generated by Ranorex and the other key information about a specific data point to be more robust. It handled the transition better when we moved from computer to computer and from one size of the application to the other size. When we restarted Silk, we typically had to recalibrate screen elements within the script. Ranorex also has some of these same issues, but when we restart, it typically is faster, which is important."
"The solution has a lack of compatibility with newer technologies."
"Everything is very manual. It's up to us to find out exactly what the issues are."
"The pricing is an issue, the program is very expensive. That is something that can improve."
"The support for automation with iOS applications can be better."
"An improvement to Selenium HQ would be the inclusion of a facility to work on Shadow DOM."
"Selenium HQ can be complex. The interface requires a QA engineer or an expert to use it."
"It does require a programming skill set. I would like the product not to require a heavy programming skill set and be more user-friendly for someone without a programming background."
"Shadow DOM could be improved and the handling of single page applications. Right now, it's a bit complicated and there are a lot of additional scripts required if you want to handle a single page application in a neat way."
"They should leverage the tools for supporting Windows apps."
"The initial setup of Selenium HQ is difficult in many areas, such as the framework."
"For people that don't know about technology, maybe it's difficult to use."
"I would like to see Selenium HQ support legacy platforms."
Earn 20 points
OpenText Silk Test is ranked 26th in Functional Testing Tools while Selenium HQ is ranked 5th in Functional Testing Tools with 102 reviews. OpenText Silk Test is rated 7.6, while Selenium HQ is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of OpenText Silk Test writes "Stable, with good statistics and detailed reporting available". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Selenium HQ writes "Continuously being developed and large community makes it easy to find solutions". OpenText Silk Test is most compared with OpenText UFT One, OpenText UFT Developer, Apache JMeter, froglogic Squish and Katalon Studio, whereas Selenium HQ is most compared with Eggplant Test, Tricentis Tosca, Worksoft Certify, Telerik Test Studio and Automation Anywhere (AA).
See our list of best Functional Testing Tools vendors and best Regression Testing Tools vendors.
We monitor all Functional Testing Tools reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.